I have no technological problem with Rust. I have a problem with the people behind it. Soydevs recoding GPL projects and relicensing them as pushover licenses for their corpo-thugs they desperately wish were their friends.
I live programs written in rust. They are quick & lightweight & fun.
Know what i hate ? Installing rust programs with cargo. It’s slow & grinds my Chromebook to a halt.
Average C from source experience: (copied from Kicad)
apt get long list of dependency git clone cd cmake make sudo make install rm -r .Average Rust from source experience:
cargo installMost of the time you should probably not install from source of possible.
I mean, that’s not a Rust issue per se. It’s only noticeable because
cargois much better than most build systems, and hence is an actual option for distribution of software. But there should ideally always be a binary distribution. I know some people like to build everything by themselves, but I get it, it’s annoying.Yeah, the good tooling also means it isn’t even terribly difficult for the dev to provide builds, but it isn’t quite as automated as publishing to crates.io, so many don’t bother with automating or manually uploading…
Pypi isn’t in any way less an option for distributing software countless projects that use it that way can be used as a proof. Hell, awscli installed from pypi for ages. In my experience cargo is extremely slow at building and downloading hundred libraries that every program needs.
For people who do this, is the purpose to ensure you are not getting a bad binary which has some malicious code compiled in?
If yes, isn’t it more difficult to check all the source code yourself? You may as well trust a binary where the author has confirmed a hash of the binary. Unless you really are checking every single line of source code. But then I wonder how you get anything else done.
The idea is that someone is checking the code. And by building it yourself, you can at least ensure that you’re getting what’s built from the code. It is possible that some malicious stuff was inserted while building the binary that doesn’t show up in the source code. Building from source solves that problem.
Reproducible builds try to solve that problem by generating some provenance from a third party. A middle ground can be building the binary using something like GitHub Actions, since that can be audited by others. That comes with its own can of worms since GH is owned by M$, but I digress.
So it is technically sane to do it, just not very practical in my view. But for lesser known apps, I do sometimes build from source.
Try
cargo-binstall
Its that Edward Norton?
What no systemd?
Why are we afraid of systemd again? /gen
I came in late w/ arch-based systems so legitimately don’t know the lore.
Off the top of my head, in no particular order:
- Systemd and its components are responsible for too many essential system functions. Init, services, mounts, timers, logging, network config, hostname, DNS resolution, locale, devices, home directories, boot, NTP sync, and I’m sure there are others, can be handled by systemd or one of its components.
- Systemd violates the UNIX philosophy of “do one thing and do it well”. Systemd is a complex solution to a complex problem: this thread has several comments by a former Arch Linux maintainer that explains why they’ve switched to systemd, and why the earlier method of using single initscripts was unsustainable.
- It is owned and maintained by Red Hat, known for its many controversies.
- Some people just don’t like modern things and think that the Linux ecosystem peaked in the 1980s.
Most (though not all) of the popular complaints are completely unreasonable. Those people usually see themselves as moral and righteous and expect the world at large to follow their personal creed. I especially consider the UNIX philosophy to be outdated, and strict adherence to it to be an obstacle for modern apps and systems.
I have some issues with systemd, and I don’t like that one for-profit company has such a massive influence over the entire Linux ecosystem, but I have to acknowledge that it works, it works well enough to counter my personal issues, and that the people whose opinion matters the most (specifically Debian and Arch maintainers) chose it for a good reason.
Those people usually see themselves as moral and righteous and expect the world at large to follow their personal creed.
If they don’t like systemd but are forced to use it for some reason, I can understand why they might have some negative feelings
Once I switched to a distro with OpenRC, I stopped feeling the need to argue about systemd
Now I want a shirt that says “Linux ecosystem peaked in 1980s”
Some people just don’t like modern things and think that the Linux ecosystem peaked in the 1980s.
Linux was released in 1991.
It’s a little known fact that the first answer to Linus’ first message announcing his new OS was “You stupid thing, why did you created it? It ruined it! Linux was better before!”.
It’s called a hyperbole.
(edit) But, honestly, it’s still kind of accurate. Many of the most significant software suites that define the Linux ecosystem in more recent decades were written in the 80s or earlier. X (the display protocol) was released in 1984, and X11 in 1987. GNU Emacs was released in 1985. Vi, in 1976. UNIX System V, from which
sysvinitand compatible init systems were adopted, was released in 1983. It’s not a stretch to say that certain people want to regress to the 1980s state, even if the kernel wasn’t around.Funny thing is, nothing in the list adheres to the so called unix phylosophy.
This sign won’t stop me! I can’t read!
“You can’t have programs that do multiple things! Any program that is multi-use is ebil. Standardized syntax and functionality between different related systems? NO! PROGRAM DO ONE THING!”
even when said “one program” is actually 69 (nice) different binaries
Wayland is superior. Yeah I said it.
That is just like your opinion man - the dude
People say lots of things.
It’s the best. Everyone says so.
So what you’re saying is, the guy in the last frame should be laughing?
Yeah. Although Wayland is NOT modular, as on the compositor taking care of things that probably shouldn’t be controlled by it, and Rust’s compiler doesn’t support every architecture under the sun, unlike C.
Rust is an ecosystem that works almost, but not quite, entirely unlike C.
Why would it need to be modular? What kind of modules should even be there? It can be implemented in multiple ways anyway. Rust programs are extremely slow when I build them, it really take ages on my machines, but it works just fine.
Wayland needs more time in the oven
If I built this, there would be a third, much larger one labeled “Snaps”.
Wayland triple buffer: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/x0zFtsl2-po
